“- Chicken has a PDCAAS of 0.95 - Soy has a PDCAAS of 0.92”

That sounds pretty comparable from your chosen metric.

I don't disagree that it's comparable - in fact that's half my point. That was the first 'fact' I listed. It's pointless to claim bioavailability is 'debunked', because soy stands on it's own in the bioavailability data.

However, it's also misleading to claim it's debunked then point to seitan and beans as viable alternatives, or warn against fat content immediately after comparing tofu to chicken.

How do you feel great knowing you are harming other sentient beings?

Are there other areas of your life that you optimize for your own personal preferences at the expense of other sentient beings?

Are there areas where you don’t?

What about you?

Putting aside the combative tone of your comment:

> Are there other areas of your life that you optimize for your own personal preferences at the expense of other sentient beings?

I think the answer must be yes for everyone here. We are choosing to use (and pay for) the internet and electricity when we could instead be buying food for people who have none. We participate in Western economies which prey on the economies of the developing world.

I think it's important to also think about the definition here of 'sentient' and the definition of 'harm'. Is it 'harmful' to build houses, when otherwise animals would live in the fields/forests? Is it 'harmful' to burn fossil fuels for energy? Do you refuse to use electricity which has come from fossil fuel sources?

Is 'sentience' the right point to draw the line? How would you respond to findings like this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pce.13065, which comes to the conclusion that the assumption that plants are not sentient may be flawed?

Honestly, from a poorly philosophical standpoint I struggle finding a reason not to conclude that the best solution as a human is to remove oneself entirely from the equation. As humans we are practically a walking Holocaust no matter what we do. The point about plants only drives this home further. There are even reasonable arguments for panpsychism which might mean even more unavoidable cause for suffering from one's existence

I just spent the last month learning to build EarthShip homes from the human waste stream. Not perfect but heading in the right direction as they generate all their own power.

You make great points about exploitation that we all benefit from.

As for plants, I think it’s possible, however raising animals requires even more plants to be killed.

And I’m not sure plants experience pain the way animals do. And if I had to choose, it seems animals are more capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

> How do you feel great knowing you are harming other sentient beings?

Because I wake up refreshed, have steady energy throughout the day, and can focus on solving complicated tasks throughout the day. I'm happier and healthy than I've ever been.

> Are there other areas of your life that you optimize for your own personal preferences at the expense of other sentient beings?

Almost every area of my life is at the expense of other sentient beings. I use energy that probably comes from coal that is fueling the war. I use an iPhone that has a battery that was probably made from slaves in china, built from materials sourced from slaves in mines in Africa. If you're checking hacker news, I'm assuming you are optimizing for your own personal preferences at the expense of other sentient beings.

I'd like to change some of that. The are more effective ways of doing so than just opting out of society.

> Are there areas where you don’t?

Chicken and pork are actually my favorite foods. I don't eat them because I think as livestock they're a net harm to the environment.

I don't kill spiders in my house, they're happy to cohabitate.

I have a dog, I sacrifice hours a day to make sure he is happy and healthy.

Happy to answer any other questions

I appreciate your answer.

Do you desire to protect your dog or dogs over other animas capable of the same or greater social and emotional experience?

Why not eat dogs?

You seem to place humans and animals in the same moral category w.r.t. violence, specifically predation, due to your usage of "other sentient beings" in the above comment.

In your view, if a lion and a hunter both kill a gazelle, have they both committed the same moral violation?

Tre lion likely is less aware what it's doing and what there implications are

In my opinion this is the weakest argument for veganism. Are Lions bad because they eat deer? Are Sharks good because they eat fish that eat other fish that eat plants? Are cats demons...maybe?

The philosophy makes no sense even if you start with the assumption that animals are on the same moral plane as people that does not preclude or discount eating them out of preference because animals already do that. If you want to argue for veganism use a less combative prideful argument. For example I'm not vegan or vegetarian but I heavily reduce my meat consumption for environment and health reasons, less than 2 times a month and I want to go lower. Talking about the nuance and difficulty that comes with eating less meat and overcoming them should be inline with the, moral pride based better than you attitude you have. And it should be something you are seeking not trying to derail because your goal is to get people to eat less meat.

I simply asked a question.

One need not conflate “combative” with confronting.

As for other animals, I know that they suffer, feel pain, and have a desire to live.

I do not know if they have the capacity to decide what to eat.

We humans, however, do.

And, the vast majority of meat being eaten is from animals that are vegetarian.